Hillary Clinton lacks constitutional fortitude

[TooTall]

He is the first President to be impeached for lying under oath. He attempted to deny Paula Jones her day in court by lying. He raped Juanita Broderick. It interesting that you support a lying scumbag that abuses women. That makes you a bottom feeder as well.

History shows that impeachment was more about the vile and hateful tactics of the republicans than anything he might have done.

Is that why a federal judge fined him and suspended his law license? She wasn't a Republican.

You truly have nothing but discredited lies
snopes.com Barack and Michelle Obama s Law Licenses

You are a waste of bandwidth. Bill Clinton was impeached, fined by a federal judge for lying to her and lost his law license. Why did you bring up Obama?

He never lost his license. Look it up.

I did:

"The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment."

 

[BULLDOG]

In the fist place, I'm pretty sure he isn't the first or last person to lie about fooling around, and with all the public whining and carrying on about his indiscretion over the years, just who do you think might be stupid enough to try to use that to blackmail him?

He is the first President to be impeached for lying under oath. He attempted to deny Paula Jones her day in court by lying. He raped Juanita Broderick. It interesting that you support a lying scumbag that abuses women. That makes you a bottom feeder as well.

History shows that impeachment was more about the vile and hateful tactics of the republicans than anything he might have done.

Is that why a federal judge fined him and suspended his law license? She wasn't a Republican.

You truly have nothing but discredited lies
snopes.com Barack and Michelle Obama s Law Licenses

You are a waste of bandwidth. Bill Clinton was impeached, fined by a federal judge for lying to her and lost his law license. Why did you bring up Obama?

Perhaps you should read the link. It mentions that Clinton voluntarily gave up his license for five years, and has been eligible to retrieve it since that time.

 

[BULLDOG]

He was an ass, but not the President.

Odd how he is the only one gone after. What about Newt? He was banging his aid while leading the accusations about Clinton.

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

 

[Lakhota]

Is lacking "constitutional fortitude" anything like constipation?

 

[BULLDOG]

Is lacking "constitutional fortitude" anything like constipation?

Can't be, cause she shits all over the right wing every time they come up with some new accusation. I would think they would get tired of it, but they just come back for more.

 

[TooTall]

He is the first President to be impeached for lying under oath. He attempted to deny Paula Jones her day in court by lying. He raped Juanita Broderick. It interesting that you support a lying scumbag that abuses women. That makes you a bottom feeder as well.

History shows that impeachment was more about the vile and hateful tactics of the republicans than anything he might have done.

Is that why a federal judge fined him and suspended his law license? She wasn't a Republican.

You truly have nothing but discredited lies
snopes.com Barack and Michelle Obama s Law Licenses

You are a waste of bandwidth. Bill Clinton was impeached, fined by a federal judge for lying to her and lost his law license. Why did you bring up Obama?

Perhaps you should read the link. It mentions that Clinton voluntarily gave up his license for five years, and has been eligible to retrieve it since that time.

Why did he do that?

On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment.

Did he or did he not lose his law license?

 

[TooTall]

He was an ass, but not the President.

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

He was an ass, but not the President.

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

He was an ass, but not the President.

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

He was an ass, but not the President.

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

He was an ass, but not the President.

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

He was an ass, but not the President.

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones, which had nothing to do with the right wing.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

History shows that impeachment was more about the vile and hateful tactics of the republicans than anything he might have done.

Is that why a federal judge fined him and suspended his law license? She wasn't a Republican.

You truly have nothing but discredited lies
snopes.com Barack and Michelle Obama s Law Licenses

You are a waste of bandwidth. Bill Clinton was impeached, fined by a federal judge for lying to her and lost his law license. Why did you bring up Obama?

He never lost his license. Look it up.

I did:

"The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment."

As I said, he never lost it.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

Well, Clinton wasn't the first president to dip his wick in somebody else's ink well. Why only him?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones, which had nothing to do with the right wing.

And you contend there was nothing political about it? You might want to see who financed all of Jones court costs. The entire thing was nothing more than a right wing attempt to attack Clinton. Nothing you can say will change that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

She "claims' to be fighting for women. What women?
The ones who fucked her husband? The ones who let him stick cigars in them? The ones she should have had the character and spine to stand up to by dumping that sexual predator of a husband over? The ones that were taken advantage of because they were young & stupid?

I know which one. Herself.
She placed her own power hungry ambitions ahead of proper moral choices.

And yet some of you can't wait to vote for her because you're dumb enough to believe she believes the nonsense she spouts.

"Moral choices"? From the right?

I don't particularly like Hilary, yes, she's power hungry. But hey, this sums up the last 54 presidents (which just so happens to take us maybe 70 years into the future too). Every president is president because they're massively ambitious. Even Bush dubya pretending to be a complete and utter loser with no ambition was massively ambitious. So attacking Hilary for that is hardly worth the effort.

Moral choices though. Jeez. Bush Dubya invaded Iraq, he got hundreds of thousands of people killed, he made a petri dish for ISIS in the area. What's moral about that?
Obama went and bombed Libya. Moral?
Reagan was on the Iraqis' side in the Iran-Iraq War. Moral supporting a guy like Saddam? Then he went and funded arms for the Iranians to use against the Iraqis! Moral? Oh, and he did so with dodgy dealings with the contras.

You find one president who has always done "moral" stuff. I doubt you'd find it.

So, Hilary seems to be the sort of person who would end up in the White House.

 

[TooTall]

Is that why a federal judge fined him and suspended his law license? She wasn't a Republican.

You truly have nothing but discredited lies
snopes.com Barack and Michelle Obama s Law Licenses

You are a waste of bandwidth. Bill Clinton was impeached, fined by a federal judge for lying to her and lost his law license. Why did you bring up Obama?

He never lost his license. Look it up.

I did:

"The Arkansas Supreme Court suspended Clinton's Arkansas law license in April 2000. On January 19, 2001, Clinton agreed to a five-year suspension and a $25,000 fine in order to avoid disbarment and to end the investigation of Independent Counsel Robert Ray (Starr's successor). On October 1, 2001, Clinton's U.S. Supreme Court law license was suspended, with 40 days to contest his disbarment. On November 9, 2001, the last day for Clinton to contest the disbarment, he opted to resign from the Supreme Court Bar, surrendering his license, rather than facing penalties related to disbarment."

As I said, he never lost it.

Clinton surrendered his law license rather than face penalties related to disbarment. That means in the English language he no longer had his law license. Now, since he had his 'friends' give him money for his legal defense you can say he didn't pay a $25,000 fine as well. You are one delusional asshole.

 

[TooTall]

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

He is the only one that tried to lie out of it.

He was the only one who had that used against him for political purposes. If the others were never even asked, there would be no opportunity to lie.

I could explain to you that it was part of the discovery process that lawyers use to establish a pattern of behaviour, but I doubt you would understand it.

But can you explain how that discovery process would have even begun without the right wing circus over his BJ?

Clinton was being sued by Paula Jones, which had nothing to do with the right wing.

And you contend there was nothing political about it? You might want to see who financed all of Jones court costs. The entire thing was nothing more than a right wing attempt to attack Clinton. Nothing you can say will change that.

Clinton sexually harassed Paula Jones and he paid her off rather than risk losing in court. It wasn't right wingers that took her to his hotel room so he could ask her for a blow job.

 

[CowboyTed]

The right is really loosing it, they are finally see it...

Hillary is wrapping up the Dem Nom, they will be forced to choose Jeb because no one else has prayer.

Hillary wins anyway with the senate.

In the next few years the supreme court justices Scaila and Kennedy resign or die. Hillary appoints young liberal ones. Instead of supreme court being 5-4 Conservative it will be 6-3 Liberal.

Hillary would probably last 8 years then Thomas is a danger but looks fairly healthy today.

The funny thing is RWers hate big legal documents (rem Obamacare) but it will be the small ones with ambiguity which will be tested and a more liberal viw taken.

Gone will be United Citizen ruling, Gun Control will be up,......

RWers you created this mess and now are going to take a generation of rullings(25+ years) from liberal court.